How Can A Three Line Whip Be Implemented In A Democratic Govt?

[sunsocks]

Having looked up what a three line whip means in UK politics (with regard to the up and coming vote on the Syria situation) I don't understand how this is allowed in a democratic parliament. Surely my MP should be voting to reflect his constituent's feelings rather than what David Cameron wants. Please can somene explain so I can easily understand. Many thanks for any responses.

[Canary42]

But nobody voted for a Coalition so that's democracy out of the window anyway.

[ToraToraTora]

You could be forgiven for thinking so but in reality the party system means block voting under leader control that is the only way the system can have any sort of usage. The alternative is paralysis. Often the partys will agree that something is a free vote and thus each MP votes as they personally want but those things are rare. There is also the pairing system that means they mostly don;t even need to turn up to vote.

[McMouse]

When MP's are elected to parliament they usually accept the "Whip" of their party and are therefore obliged to accept the party discipline that goes with it. If they want to follow their conscience or the wishes of their constituents they are quite free to resign the whip and vote contrary to party orders.

[VHG]

Most back bench are like "sheep" and just vote whatever way the party bosses tell them to.

There are very few "free votes" in the house.

You say "Surely my MP should be voting to reflect his constituent's feelings" but any MP will probably find half the constituency want one thing, the other half want another thing, so how can any MP vote AND keep both sides happy?

[Zacs-Master]

Surely my MP should be voting to reflect his constituent's feelings...

To turn that on it's head.....

Surely you should have voted in the candidate most likely to react in the way you wanted in such circumstances?

[albaqwerty]

Zacs, that's the thing, you vote for the person who promises you things in your local area, they get voted in and then they have to toe the party-line.
Democracy? aye, right, but it's better than the alternative.

[Canary42]

That's all very well Zac, but at the last election I voted for the party whose leader swore (at his leadership election) that he would never work with the Conservatives, and that was why he got my vote.

And the b@stard reneged, so I get the government I didn't want but which got my vote - how "constituent-representative" is that ?

[Zacs-Master]

Very true Alba. I just wanted to point out that there's always a different way to think about things. 'Spin' I think the politicians call it.

[bert_h]

The Scots poet Robert Burns was as aware of the contradiction as you are. His poem "The Twa Dugs" lays a charge against the local MP for "... gaun as PREMIERS lead him, an' saying aye or no's they bid him".

[albaqwerty]

I'm now wondering if we should have a 'you must vote' kinda thing
I know there's a name for it but am doing other things at the moment

[Peter Pedant]

Your MP - is not your delegate - that is votes the way you want

but IS your representative - that is you select him as a package - sort of all or none (nd if it is Eric Oickles there is quite a lot of him to select)

Free votes - I cant remember when the last one was - they are quite uncommon. There was one in the last few weeks, but I cnt remember what it was about.

Didnt happen like this is the nineteenth century. Over parliamentary oaths - 1885 Charles Bradlaugh was an Anglican but wished to affirm and not swear. This would have been OK if he were a sunworshipper of atheist.

Gladstone gets defeated in a vote but does not resign over whether B should take up his seat. The red hot Anglicans say he shouldnt. Then a bill is introduced with Govt support - cl . 1 - Mr Bradlaugh shall take up his seat....
and it is defeated.

incredible

[Peter Pedant]

MPs sheep
The troop in and out of the voting lobbies - in herds or flocks
and if they do it for 25 y they get a knighthood

[Canary42]

... and if they do it for just one Parliament they get a handsome pension.

[frugalfred]

W.S. Gilbert put it thus: "But then the prospect of a lot of dull MP's in close proximity, all thinking for themselves is what no man can face with equanimity!"

[frugalfred]

He went on: "When in that House, MP's divide, if they've a brain and cerebellum too; they've got to leave that brain ouside, and vote just as their leaders tell 'em to!"

[albaqwerty]

Obama couldn't give a hoot about the 9% in favour and the 91% against, attacking Syria.
(can't find link, sorry) He can't get re-elected anyway.
Does the US Congress and Senate have a Whip?

[Gromit]

// just like Iraq, the different parliamentary parties will vote sheeplike, to start yet another military conflict. //

[ToraToraTora]

I don't think the west could be seen as starting this Gromit!

[Gromit]

Tora Tora Tora

Syria is a civil war. We may not have started it (though that could be debated) but we will escalate it.

[ToraToraTora]

So we should do nothing? I sort of agree and that is the standard position of the left wing but I'm sort of persuaded by mikey who's been bleating on for weeks for action and that is unusual for the left thinkers so I sort of started to think again. Personally I don't think the whole middle east is worth one of our troops so they can carry on killing each other for all I care.